Talk:Knights Templar legends

Larmenius Charter
We need to work on including a text about the Larmenius Charter in the claims of descent and revival section. --Loremaster 00:07, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The document is bogus, the Regius Poem probably has more relivancy then the Larmenius Charter BlueTemplar13 09:28, 13 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Of course it is bogus. However, I think it is worth mentioning in this article in light of popular obsession with connecting the historic Knights Templar with its modern revivals. --Loremaster 17:31, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

The statement that the tale of "Templars at Bannockburn" dates only to the mid 18th century is important to an understanding that the tale can't be true. Please leave it in. 66.156.107.108 00:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Rosslyn Chapel
Rosslyn Chapel is listed both here and at the main templar page's list of associated locations. One says that they are 'known' one says unverified, just figured I'd let you folks know. ZDracolis


 * It should say unverified, there is no proof they were associated with this location. It is speculation.

It is worse that speculation, it is invention. Roslin was a 'collegiate chapel' and was not built until more than a century after the suppression of the order. CB

Bernard de Clairvaux was the organizer and their original intention was Biblical archeology
History: Bernard de Clairvaux was behind organizing the original nine knights for the purpose of finding proof of contested Jesus' history and other Judeo-Christian knowledge. Only nine men certainly could not provide adequate protection to Christians on a pilgrimmage to the Holy Land. That was their "stated mission", but not their real mission. Bernard and the others were well instructed in Gnostic knowledge and they were aware of the 'historical Jesus'. They knew they could excavate the Temple Mount and possibly find great treasures and scrolls with great information. Without having found this treasure in the nine years they were in Jerusalem, they would never have been treated like they were by the Pope afterward. The question now is, what did they find through their archeological excavations? Some Freemasons throughout history have been prevy to these secrets. 64.136.26.235 (talk) 15:39, 14 August 2010 (UTC)Brad Watson, Miami, FL

Templars discovered Y'shua ben Yosef (Jesus) was born on 4/17/ 6 BC (17/4/747 Roman Calendar)
Perhaps the greatest treasure that the Knights Templar found when they excavated the Temple Mount, was a scroll from the Herod's Temple era that simply documented when Y'shua ben Yosef was born! Jesus was born on April 17, 6 BC or 17/4/747 AUC (ab urbe condita [since the founding of Roma]). How do we know this? This information was passed on to the Freemasons, who have made it part of a strickly oral transmission. However, through their use of sacred geometry and sacred gematria, we can recognize them encoding it throughout history. For example: In 1717, 4 London Lodges formed the first Grand Lodge. At least nine signers of the United States' Declaration of Independence were Freemasons, including Grand Master Mason Benjamin Franklin and GMM John Hancock. (GMM George Washington was busy with the Continental Army.) July 4, 1776 encodes it. Operative Masonry has always dealt with great building projects. The Empire State Building is 417 yards high and 1 World Trade Center was 417 meters high.

Astronomer Michael Molnar discovered the planetary alignment of April 17, 6 BC as fulfilling the requirements of the Persian Magi regarding the birth of a great Jewish king. He wrote a book about it which has been referenced by the BBC, CNN, CBS, History Channel, FOX News, Wikipedia, and others. April 17th makes Jesus an Aries the Ram, which when young are lambs. Jesus is referred to as the "Lamb of God". Also, the numerical pattern of 17/4/747 is highly significant! Using the most elemental letter-number substitution or Simple English Gematria of A=1...Z=26, GOD=7_4. 7/4 is July 4. Simple=74 (S19+i9+m13+p16+l12+e5), English=74, Gematria=74, Jewish=74, Messiah=74, Y'shua=74/Jesus=74/Joshua=74/IESVS=74, Muhammad=74, etc. 64.136.26.235 (talk) 16:17, 14 August 2010 (UTC)Brad Watson, Miami, FL

Knights Templar discovered Jesus Family Tomb between 1119-1128
The Discovery Channel documentary and book The Jesus Family Tomb by Simcha Jacobovici and Charles Pellegrino (Harper, 2007) documents that when the tomb was found on Friday March 28, 1980, there were three skulls found on the floor forming an "isosceles triangle whose base was oriented toward Jerusalem's Temple Mount... (Archaeologist) Shimon Gibson's initial and lasting impression was that some sort of ceremony had been held here, involving the intentional placement of three skulls in the main chamber of the tomb. The arrangement of the skulls on the floor made the impression of ceremony all but inescapable" (p.15) The tomb held ten ossuaries for Jesus (IAA 80/503), Mariamne/Mary Magdalean (IAA 80/500), Joseph father of Jesus (IAA 80/  ), Mary mother of Jesus (IAA 80/505), Matthew (IAA 80/502), Yakov/Jacob/James brother of Jesus (IAA 80/509), Jose brother of Jesus (IAA 80/504),  ---INCOMPLETE--- 64.136.26.235 (talk) 20:17, 14 August 2010 (UTC)Brad Watson, Miami, FL

Bannockburn
I've replaced a sentence on the Victorian origin of the myth with a short summary of Cooper's research on Burnes. The previous reference was to a 2006 program on the History Channel - now untraceable. Two further references to same also have to go. Cooper, BTW, is an archivist and author who has been running a one man campaign against Templar drivel for about a decade. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 21:37, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks. What really concerned me was "In reality, none of the contemporary or near contemporary accounts of the battle at Bannockburn mention the Knights Templar at all, and the excommunicated King Robert the Bruce had very good reason to have nothing to do with the Templars, since he was desperate to keep on the right side of the Pope and of the King of France. It is also worth noting that two members of the Knights Templar had fought for Edward I at the battle of Falkirk in 1297. Militarily he managed very well without them from 1307–1314 and from 1314–1328 and the story could only be seen as a sop to English pride – the 'real' reason for their loss isn't because they were fighting against the Scots but against an elite force of knights." We need to cite/attribute this. It's pretty rare to use blogs, see WP:RS and WP:VERIFY. Dougweller (talk) 12:25, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Concern shared. Thanks, we're using the same hymnsheet. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 10:38, 10 April 2014 (UTC)